Rant after trying Rust a bit

[via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 5 August 2015 at 19:56:37 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
> On 08/05/2015 07:32 PM, deadalnix wrote:
>> Mathematical language is geared toward generality and 
>> correctness, not
>> practicality. That makes sens in the context of math, that do 
>> not in the
>> context of every day programming.
>
> I don't see what you are trying to get at here, but I guess it 
> is almost entirely unrelated to choosing a notation for string 
> concatenation.

Well, I don't think practicality is the main issue, but the 
mnemonic aspect of syntax is important.

It is not unreasonable to make the identity of 
operators/functions consist of both name and parameter types like 
in C++ and D. So you don't have "+" as the operator name, you 
have "+(int,int)" and "+(string,string)".

If one makes mathematical properties intrinsic to untyped part of 
the name then a lot of overloading scenarios break down e.g. for 
non-euclidean types.

It has been argued that functional languages would benefit from 
teaching functional programming in a less mathematical manner 
(e.g. talk about "callbacks" rather than "monads" etc):

https://youtu.be/oYk8CKH7OhE